40 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



I 



intermediates and one var. piceata. Another, a male, was 

 suffused with a reddish brown instead of the black-brown of 

 piceata, but unfortunately was a good deal worn. 



On the 29th we took a specimen of Hypsipetes ruherata, and 

 saw a second. They were in a birch wood, with a few sallows at 

 the edge. Later, two more were taken, one on an aspen. 



On May 30th Lohophora hexapterata appeared on the aspen- 

 trunks in considerable numbers, showing a good range of colour 

 and markings, including many buff-banded forms, only three of 

 which were males. This variety is almost restricted to the 

 females, as far as my experience goes. Amongst these birches 

 and aspens were several worn females of L. lobulata, one with 

 the transverse lines very black, and a second with these partially 

 fused, forming a single central band. 



Lobulata lingered on till June 4th, surely a very late date ! 

 I have taken them in the same wood on April 10th, in consider- 

 able numbers. These aspens proved rich in Macro-Lepidoptera. 

 Cymatophora or was first found on June 2nd, and lasted until 

 June 22nd. A few recently emerged specimens were found on 

 the lower part of the trunks ; the rest were shaken from the 

 higher branches, often falling into the burn, and affording some 

 excitement before they could be fished out. 



On June 2nd we took five Cidaria corylata, one being of the 

 var. alhocrenata. This insect became very abundant later, but 

 only included a small number of the variety. On the aspens we 

 also found one Notodonta dictcea, with very white ground colour ; 

 one Lophopteryx camclina uniformly dark brown with smoky 

 grey fringes and hind wings ; several Smeiiiithiis populi, also 

 very dark. 



(To be concluded.") 



NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 



SCOPAKIA FREQUENTELLA AB. PORTLANDICA NOT AT BaRMOUTH. — In 



Entom. xxxviii. 292-3 (1905), the capture of " Scoparia freqiiejitella 

 var. portlandica " in the Barmouth district, last seasou, was chronicled 

 by Mr. J. Arkle, whereupou, thinking that so startling a statement 

 required investigation, I wrote to him, and he has kindly obliged me 

 with the loan of the specimen upon which his record was based. It 

 shows no resemblance to ab. portlandica , and is not even referable to 

 S. frequentella, for it proves to be, most certainly, an ordinary light 

 specimen of *S'. cratayella, Hb. *S'. frequentella ab. portlandica, which 

 is clearly figured, though under the erroneous name phaoleuca, in Ent. 

 Mo. Mag. v. pi. i. fig. 10 (1869), and in Leech's Brit. Pyr. pi. 15, 

 fig. 5 (1886), is so remarkably localized that, in spite of its having 

 been recorded (as ^'phaolenca ") from Brandon by Leech {op. cit., p. 19), 

 as well as from Eanworth by Winter (Ent. Wk. Int. ix. p. 3 (1860) ), 

 my belief that it has not been met with beyond the limits of the Isle of 



